AGM

[Phil Thomas]

All contributors to this debate has assumed that the disabled player has to attend the venue.

Isn't there a sub committee looking into the possibility of distant players playing competitive chess remotely?

Any chance of an update on the progress of that sub committee getting published at or before the agm?

[Alex Gillies]

I've re-read this entire thread, and the 'guidelines' from FIDE and our CS motion from Stevie and Andy H, and am still none the wiser as to what is best :-\ Does anyone fancy summarising the pros and cons? :-o

I've been wanting to chip in - think you summed it up - for all the interest & effort what have we really got? A re invented wheel from Fide regs? (which has probably had hundreds of hours on it already)

Solution:
Fide events: nothing to debate its happening.
CS events policy should simply state that "Fide guidelines for disabled access will be adopted where possible and where practical"

In addition we do need to communicate practical issues(how else are players to know?) :
1 Entry forms should state that it is fide compliant or is not fide compliant re disabled access
2 If it is not compliant it should state that is not on the forms and post something like the following on the entry form and or CS Website:
a fide guidelines for disabled access will be adopted where possible and where practical
b what key areas the event will not be able to meet such as stair access or state that there are none of particular note
c policy is to try to accommodate disabled access/support where possible/practical
d players wishing assistance should contact event organisers say 3 weeks before the event
e what the complaints/suggestions for improvements procedure is

Something similar for clubs

The RAF incident bothers me - an alternative venue was needed - you don't need rule books for that -just common sense.

I don't see it affecting that many players volume wise but the ones that do it can make a real difference which is why they already get a lot of support.

[John Dempsey]

Yes Alex, the RAFA thing bothered me as well. Still does actually. However it brought it home to me that the legislation does not allow for a plea of " We did not think it applied to us, we are a private club." Nor for that matter does it allow for " It just wasn't practical, and we try to accommodate, where possible, and besides which, everyone knew in advance we could not offer access."

In much the same way as all-seater football stadiums became de rigour (no excuses tolerated), so disability legislation can, and does, get enforced. Worth recognizing that as a fact, which many at the RAFA club thought could not possibly apply to them. But it did.

[Phil Thomas]

I have had restricted internet access over the past week but was able to read the thread daily.
It does surprise me that nobody has commented upon the 2nd paragraph.

2. No one has the right to refuse to meet a disabled player against whom he has been correctly paired.

I suggest amending that to read.

2. No one has the right to refuse to meet a player against whom he has been correctly paired.


The first version version could be interpreted to imply that a refusal to play an opponent could be acceptable in the case of an able bodied player.

Quoting myself because postings on main body of motion 1 pushed this posting back 2 or 3 pages in a few hours.
As always I suspect that no replies indicate tacit agreement.

Expanding on my theme. The question of refusing to play an opponent in a correct published draw falls into similar categories as the overall guidelines of motion 1.

(A) In a FIDE event it is already forbidden to change a published draw - unless two players were due to play for the second time.

(B) For CS events it is up to CS to decide what to do if a player refuses to play the correct opponent in a published draw.

© For independent events controlled by independent people - common sense will hopefully prevail.


However this is a slightly different situation to the main body of motion 1.

CS licensed arbiters could be instructed by CS to stick to the FIDE regulations for all swiss draws they do at any event. Sadly its too late to put this as a motion to the 2014 agm. However, I wonder if the principal is generally agreed by notice board readers.

[Alex Gillies]

[quote="John Dempsey"] everyone knew in advance we could not offer access

That is the part that bothered me. It illustrates that context is important: Don't know how many members RAFA had that would have been elderly but I would guess in excess of 60/70%. This was part of the reason why I suggested clarification on a complaints/suggestion process. Perhaps if it was referred to someone like Stevie Hilton,CS or the wider community and MP to raise awareness it might have been possible to source alternatives.

Contrast that with Edinburgh or the Troon examples where there is likely to be only or one or two potential players affected, if that.

If there are players affected they should be able to voice concerns and awareness to see if alternatives can be sought - with such low numbers case by case- if organisers have done what they can surely that is all that can be asked. If, in rare cases, you have an individual who can't attend one or two events a year there are still plenty other events available in the year.

[George Murphy]

Wait a minute. That quote from John (D) referred to RAFA - not Glasgow Montrose Chess Club. RAFA was owner/operator, not GM CC, which simply 'rented' space. RAFA would be the licensee (there was a bar) - not GM CC. I understand RAFA also laid on entertainment and that Kate Bush once appeared there. Of course, RAFA would have to comply with the law of the land.

[John Dempsey]

Correct George. I think that if you only rent (most chess clubs) then it is going to fall to the landlord to comply with legislation regarding accessibility. Yet, it is still food for thought, for once something becomes law it will, sooner or later, be enforced. So lets hope no additions/amendments to the current legislation encompass those who rent!

[George Murphy]

Hi John,

Thank you. I think the key point is to keep an eye on the legislation. As citizens we must obey/observe/respect the law of the land. We need to respect FIDE, too, of course, but they won't put us in the clink.

Wee wrinkles keep occurring to me. For example, right to equality? I can see this Motion/issue being referred to Council. I don't think we have been given enough time to analyse/assess all the possible ramifications of this question. I am absolutely confident that everyone is keeping within the law, but there's no room for complacency. All my experience, as you know, related to the Far East - and I don't mean Aberdeen!

Good to hear from you.

George

[robin moore]

To reaffirm what Andy Howie presented earlier, there are three options for this motion:


1. They agree with the guidelines and will enforce for Chess Scotland events
2. They agree with the guidelines and will recommend for Chess Scotland events
3. They reject the guidelines completely with respect to Chess Scotland Event

As the motion is presently worded, voting for option 2 doesn't appear to be an option at all.

[David Deary]

I find it bemusing that the wording that has been agreed by the 150+ member federations of FIDE is not up to par for Chess Scotland forum posters/members. Jiminy Cricket! Propose an amendment or add words if you must but be constructive.